Come on now Clyde' date=' surely you've seen on a leftist website her at first saying "the Supreme Court got Heller wrong," now she says Scalia "got Heller wrong." Heller case is a landmark decision that says individuals have the right to own a gun. Hillary will appoint a new justice who lets say "agrees with her" if you will.[/quote']

 

I don't follow her much. Let me get educated.

I don't follow her much. Let me get educated.

 

You're like the top news guy on the site, guess I assumed you read Fox and CNN frequently.

If I sold guns I'd plant stories about the govt "definitely" wanting to take away guns and then jack up my gun prices.

 

These guys have to love the last 7+ years.

 

I am in banking and have a customer who is a pretty big gun seller in the Cincinnati area. They absolutely loath Hillary Clinton but said if HRC wins the election, they will not be able to keep the guns on the shelves. It will be a record year in 2016 just because of the last couple of months (post election) and a record 2017 if HRC wins.

I am in banking and have a customer who is a pretty big gun seller in the Cincinnati area. They absolutely loath Hillary Clinton but said if HRC wins the election' date=' they will not be able to keep the guns on the shelves. It will be a record year in 2016 just because of the last couple of months (post election) and a record 2017 if HRC wins.[/quote']

 

It's been insane the last 2 years.

You're like the top news guy on the site, guess I assumed you read Fox and CNN frequently.

 

 

I don't watch much TV at all these days.

 

From the quick perusal I did it seems like she and her spokesperson are saying they are not against the 2nd amendment but against cities and states not being able to set their own laws (Heller case).

 

While she may want all guns made illegal in her heart she'll never say it nor pursue the abolishment of the 2nd amendment. No chance.

It's been insane the last 2 years.

 

It is amazing what a campaign of fear-mongering can accomplish.:thumb:

It is amazing what a campaign of fear-mongering can accomplish.:thumb:

 

I'm sure you saw the AG in Mass decided to arbitrarily ban assault rifles, that were in compliance with state laws. She put a 24 hour notice on the ban, stores reported that they sold 2,251 modern sport rifles in those 24 hours.

 

The day before her announcement, they reported sales of 132. Looks like the fear is real.

Edited August 5, 201610 yr by John Anthony

I don't watch much TV at all these days. From the quick perusal I did it seems like she and her spokesperson are saying they are not against the 2nd amendment but against cities and states not being able to set their own laws (Heller case). While she may want all guns made illegal in her heart she'll never say it nor pursue the abolishment of the 2nd amendment. No chance.

 

You are correct on the surface, I'll try to simplify it even further. She absolutely does not want federal precedent set stating, individuals have rights to own guns. You are correct she wants the states to be able to regulate it. So in states like CA, NY, NJ, IL, Maryland, the republics, they can make you jump through 10 hoops to own a gun. Her elitism will try to overrule a Supreme Court ruling, why, because she doesn't like the results of it.

I don't watch much TV at all these days.

 

From the quick perusal I did it seems like she and her spokesperson are saying they are not against the 2nd amendment but against cities and states not being able to set their own laws (Heller case).

 

While she may want all guns made illegal in her heart she'll never say it nor pursue the abolishment of the 2nd amendment. No chance.

 

I wonder how she feels about this being applied to other controversial issues?

While she may want all guns made illegal in her heart she'll never say it nor pursue the abolishment of the 2nd amendment. No chance.

 

Never. Nor will any other President in our lifetime.

Never. Nor will any other President in our lifetime.

 

40, 50, 60 years ago, do you think people ever imagined they would be walking around with a computer in their pocket? That people could be biological determined to be one gender, but self identify as another gender, and would actually be accepted? That cars would be driving themselves?

 

Not saying it will, but a lot can change in a lifetime.

Never. Nor will any other President in our lifetime.

 

Do you think she should have Heller overturned, so it's on federal record, that we don't have the right to own a gun?

 

Of course, the 2A will always be there on paper but anyone could easily make it irrelevant if they wanted.

Going back to something Habib said yesterday, about gun regulations not being considered an infringement on the second amendment, and I agreed with him. At face value, necessary gun regulations do not automatically strike me as an infringement on the second amendment.

 

However, when these regulations begin to, and continually fail, I fear we will get to a point where politicians will look around at each other and say," well we've already tried everything and it hasn't worked, the only thing left is to just ban guns." I don't think this will possibly happen anywhere in the near future, but I see it as a possibility in the next 30-40 years, especially if the Supreme Court swings as far left as some believe it may.

If I sold guns I'd plant stories about the govt "definitely" wanting to take away guns and then jack up my gun prices.

 

These guys have to love the last 7+ years.

 

Ammo salesmen are right with 'em.

 

For being anti-gun, O'Bama sure seems to sell a lot of them. Anyone who talks restricting the 2nd amendment is going to have that effect. Conservatives have watched as the unthinkable has happened over the last couple of decades. So, when it looks like un restriction crowd is gaining momentum, people react.

 

I don't watch much TV at all these days.

 

From the quick perusal I did it seems like she and her spokesperson are saying they are not against the 2nd amendment but against cities and states not being able to set their own laws (Heller case).

 

While she may want all guns made illegal in her heart she'll never say it nor pursue the abolishment of the 2nd amendment. No chance.

 

Well, they said they (the left, progressives, etc.) weren't trying to make the government pay for abortions either. Now HRC says she will get rid of the Hyde amendment. O'BAma was for the traditional definition of marriage... until he was already elected and the political climate in America allowed him to state otherwise without hurting him politically. They say one thing, but if they can get away with another, they'll do it. Currently, it seems the Dems are charging as hard to the left as they can. "Push the envelop and see what we can get," so to speak. Bernie ran as a socialist (yes, a "democratic" socialist, but nevertheless...)

 

At some point, in an HRC administration, with the make-up of the SCOTUS going even further left with her appointees, there may come an opportunity for the 2nd Amendment to be challenged. I do believe she would take a run at it if the conditions were favorable. Her ideological make-up would lead her in that direction, despite all her protestations to the contrary.

At some point, in an HRC administration, with the make-up of the SCOTUS going even further left with her appointees, there may come an opportunity for the 2nd Amendment to be challenged. I do believe she would take a run at it if the conditions were favorable. Her ideological make-up would lead her in that direction, despite all her protestations to the contrary.

 

In my estimation, Clinton's primary opportunity to swing the Court leftward is through the current vacancy. I assume Kennedy will be the prime candidate for retirement over the next 4-8 years, but he has his own liberal streak. So, why don't Republicans confirm Garland before Clinton has the opportunity to nominate a justice?

 

My reading of Garland is that he's someone who studiously follows precedent and favors limited, narrow rulings over sweeping changes. Even if he isn't ideologically a conservative he seems like someone unlikely to rock the boat or break with precedent, thus making him more of a moderate/Kennedy-esque justice than who Clinton or Democrats might prefer (I'm surprised there hasn't been more criticism of Obama's decision from the left). It just seems like a tremendous risk for Republicans, especially with Trump on the top of the ticket.